Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here !

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

	“The methods which have been used, up to this time, have all been called Standard Procedure. It's very interesting to hear somebody out in the field say, ‘Well, this new method I have of standing the preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone replaces Standard Procedure.’ Believe me, if there's any way at all of increasing the efficacity of processing by standing a preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone, that will become part of Standard Procedure.
	Standard Procedure is an extremely varying affair. It would probably be better called ‘Proven Procedure’. And it changes. It changes about every sixty days at least. It changes in the direction of less work and thought on the part of the auditor and faster processing for the preclear.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from Science of Survival lecture #1 “Theta-Mest Theory, Part 1”, given on 21 May 51)

Sound snippet (1:10)

	“So technical progress has been:
	CLASS VIII - 1968.
	COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
	COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
	This is quite an achievement.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

Back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)’  index

Previous technology replaced with new technology - Tech changes 1978-82  (1)

This time span does deserve special mention as it was during this time span that the Grade Chart and various of its most vital services got turned around or simply abandoned. In brief:

	New technology:		♠	(1) ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED)  (Jul 78)
			♠	Causing: (2) Change in the definition of Clear  (Sept 78)
			♠	Causing: (3) ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’ (NOT's)  (Sept 78)
			♠	Causing: (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov/Dec 81)
	Introduced:		♠	Speculation about if one was Clear or not:      a) Scientology grades V-VII required or  not? (Sept 78);      b) Is any processing needed at all? (Sept 78)  &      c) Natural Clear? (Mar 79) Being told if one was Clear, adjudicated by others (May 79)
	Lost technology:		♥	(1) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn)  (in use 1950-Jul 78)
	(NOT's (’78) & Solo NOT's (’80) knocked out original OT V-VII)		♥	(2) Original OT IV, V, VI and VII  (in use till Jan 82)
			♥	(3) Original OT VIII (never officially released although dropped in Jan 82)
	Considered superfluous:		♥	(4) Scientology grades V-VA (Power), VI (R6EW) and VII (Clearing Course)
	(caused by NED)                     (only sparesomely in use since Sept 78, if at all)

 
Index:

		A necessary word of introduction ... (page 1)
			- Foreword & A word about education - Public release of this page and responses
	The technical changes
		Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations
		Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
			(The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))
		(1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’:  ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)
			- ‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry - ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments - (a) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (1969) vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (1978) - A comparison and study       (‘going through incidents once only’ & ‘running with minimum TA’) - (b) ‘Originating a postulate’ (1969) as opposed to ‘Digging for a postulate’ (1978) - (c) Final observations for the defence of the Standard Dianetics technique - ‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’
		(2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? or Grades V-VII turning obsolete (Sept 78) (page 2)
			- The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grade V-VII) abandoned & Changing one's mind; What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity - Clear without processing (Sept 78), the ‘Natural Clear’ (Mar 79) and feeding Clear cognitions - Final notices and the ‘Basic Basic’
		(3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’? (Sept 78)
		(4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov-Dec 81)   (on different page)
		(5a) The disappearance of the original OT levels IV to VII (Jan-Mar 82)   (on different page)
		(5b) Original OT VIII dropped (Jan-March 82) (OT VIII end of the road?)   (on different page)
	Final evaluations
		Various closing considerations worthy of mention
			- (a) Warning signs  or  How easily a workable technology can get lost - (b) Déjà vu? Banished in 1970, but accepted some 10 years later. Why? - (c) Dianetics placed out of reach ... and not being delivered when it should ... - The ‘David Mayo Bridge’ - Ideal scene  vs  The lost Bridge

 
A necessary word of introduction ... 

• Foreword & A word about education
• Public release of this page and responses

 
Foreword & A word about education

This page probably has turned out to be the most significant one that has surfaced in my studies concerning the subjects of Dianetics/Scientology. But it could not have been worked out properly if the previous studies had not been performed. I refer in particular to my studies about The definition of ‘Clear’, Notes on NED for OT's (NOT's), History of the Grade Chart, and the tracking found in my The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology. But vital bits of supporting information are also found in my Introduction chapter of my study L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) (Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after).

It is reality that I had not planned a separate page concerning this until very recently. Suddenly however the necessity to create it dawned upon me. And here, once again, I am seriously rubbing long since established stable datums. If, that what my study on this page suggests is correct, then many have to admit to themselves that they have been educated with/have learned to use wrong tech and to have followed a false Bridge. Few, very few indeed, will be able to admit such a thing. It could be said that a curse lays upon man, a curse that tells him that he has to have right, that tells him that he could not possibly have made such an error in judgment, that he could not have been lead behind the curtain this easily, or that he just doesn't want to lose face in front of others (which in itself is an illusion as ignoring correct and verified data, now this will really make him lose face). And so man resorts to justify the matter, what he has been using during this many years (and this could have been up to as many as 30 years), this can not have been wrong. And man is very inventive indeed to put together his ‘defence’. And so, stubbornly, man continues the walk on the path he has been walking on for so very long. In the final end however he has to make a choice, and this choice is wholly up to him as an individual. The consequence of this choice is pending him achieving freedom or gain only a shadow of it!

There is not only engrams, secondaries, locks, and postulates. There is something else that may put a tremendous amount of burden or limitation upon man. And that is his education. If you want to rehabilitate man you also have to rehabilitate his education. You have to audit out his previous education if he is to see clearly and have true perspective. If attentiveness was lacking in his study, any of his studies, then this will have worked as authoritative education. The usual run is that it starts with his parents, then primary school will follow, college, university, and any other study that may follow on his path, he will then adopt and copy how others go about matters, and hence we will see less and less of him. He will tend to conform to the demands of this society or the group he has chosen to be part of, and he may be done for. It will have formed him as a person, formed him in how he reasons, how he sees things, and how he will act or not act. But it will not be him, but he will believe it is. Hence it will be your choice if you will be you. It requires you to be a careful observer, a very careful observer indeed!

Why do I write this? Because I find in my communications with many people that man favours to maintain and nurture his conviction above cultivating his understanding with full perception. He is not willing to let go of that which he once had been educated with, or change perceptions when new plausible options are brought to his attention. He will not consider, not even for a moment. I know people that have been Scientologists since as early as 1950 and I find that many of them still do not reason with understanding, they are still just following. How do I know this to be so? Put it through a simple test. How was I able to write such a page like this? How come did people pass by what it conveys? I only know of a few that placed question marks, very few indeed. Understanding does not come for free, it involves doingness, alertness and before all independency in mind. It may be perceived that the bulk of man (including many Scientologists), are gullible (don't find out for themselves, compare or verify), are copyists (sofa sitters), and true believers (don't or don't dare to ask the right questions). Man wants an easy way out, but alas there is no easy way out! The mind of man sways and submits easily. It often suffices to only make a suggestion, and if it is in his liking he will adapt to it fullheartedly.

“Know Thyself.”          Socrátes
         (inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi)

These studies have been released for those that are willing to give it a fair chance and to consider the inconsistencies that have surfaced and that I have assembled.

 
Public release of this page and responses

	“This has received my largest distribution ever, but this is not without reason. It may disturb some people as it will shake around some long since established stable datums, it thus may make them wonder a bit, or it may even acknowledge some. I fear however that for a certain majority it will present a reality that is not directly welcomed with open arms. For these please read the Foreword of my study! Although I have attempted to present the information as I found it, and I have been this meticulous about it as much as it has become my trademark.
	Responses are requested, you may throw at me anything as you feel like, corrections, criticisms, validations, your displeasements, whatever, I will try to turn it into something useful. But let the responses be constructive and to the point!”

Indeed I may conclude that I did receive responses. The majority of these though were of a rather appreciative nature. But I also did receive a couple that were far less appreciative. These could be summed up as having taken the matter on a personal plane. Whereas ALL I did was forwarding an assemblage of information, it was never the intent to invoke anything personal. Investigative studies are simply not about that.

It appears also not understood by some that I do not offer a statement, I offer a study. I EXAMINE information and may, based on the factual data available, note down an evaluation thereof. My aim is also not speculation, although I have been accused of that. I simply offer evaluation of verified and observed data. I attempt to strictly follow an investigative scientific approach. And the only purpose of publishing these is to urge readers to consider matters for themselves. For me personally these are about a quest to find out truth.

Now, the problem with the critical responses is that virtually all of these were made up of opinionated statements lacking proper support of reference sourcing and/or further explanation. My exact and carefully laid out observations are not being addressed nor challenged to any extend. For me such responses are utterly meaningless as I can not possibly do anything with such opinionated rebuttals. It also would reveal that these critics may not have support for their statements or at least it may indicate that these were not very well though out by them. Why otherwise not actually forwarding support to these rebuttals where one can work with?

Then we have also the matter of the lacking responses from persons that in the past have forwarded valuable views and data to my releases. We have more than just a few of these.

Per the above I can conclude that this IS sensitive material and/or various matters/agreements are too well established.

The only truly useful responses that I received were from those persons that shared with me how they have experienced things at the time and how they personally dealt what that which surfaced on their path. Although the responses from for example this one top-classed auditor from the Free Zone that ruthlessly invalidated all of it and by repetition offering zero arguments are not to be underestimated as this reveals much about its originator.

 
Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations

BEFORE ...          AFTER ...  (since 1982)               Training Processing     Training Processing      OT IV-VIII       New OT IV-VIII ↑    OT II-III ↑    OT II-III ↑    OT I ↑    New OT I (since 1984) ↑    CLEAR (mandatory are completion of Grades V-VII to full end phenomena ) ↑     CLEAR (CCRD* - “confirming” gotten Clear on the lower bridge or even by ‘Natural Clear’) ↑    Grade VII (Clearing Course)* ↑ New Era Dianetics Auditor   (Class V Auditor since 1983) New Era Dianetics (NED) ↑    Grade VI (R6EW)* ↑     Grade V-VA (Power)* ↑  Class 0-IV Auditor Lower grades (Grade 0-IV) ↑  Class 0-IV Auditor* Lower grades (Grade 0-IV) ↑  Standard Dianetics Auditor   (course included sections for E-Meter training, How to Study and TR's 0-4) Standard Dianetics (St Dn) ↑ Pro Upper Indoc Course (TR 6-9)(since 1991) Expanded ARC Straightwire ↑ Method One Word Clearing* (optional:  Scientology Drug Rundown, Happiness Rundown) ↑  Hubbard E-Meter Course* ↑  Professional TR's* Objectives (as required) ↑  Hubbard Qualified Scientologist (HQS)* ARC Straightwire (optional, as required) ↑ Student Hat* Purification Rundown (as required)

* These were basically abolished since September 1978, an Alternative Route to Clear was created shortly after although the reality is that Grades V-VII went practically out of use.   * These were noted as prerequisites for the courses next up in line since the Nov 1983 chart and onwards. Be it noted here that the prerequisites for either the St Dn/NED course and the Grade 0 course went forth and back a bit as can be seen seen on the Jan 75 chart up till the Nov 1983 chart. Sometimes we see just listed the Basic Study Manual, then we see the Student Hat, then either one of them will do. Professional TR's listed and then again any TR's course would do. Sometimes the Method One Word Clearing was listed and then again not. (Consult for details the chronological table found here, separate window.)   * This HQS course was not a prerequisite for the Standard Dianetics Auditor, but often it was done first.

A summary gives us:

 
Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
        (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))

• (a) ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965 to 1980)
• (b) ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (in use since 1975)
• (c) ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use since 1981)
• Summary (a-c)
• Additional observations, information and evaluations

“The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).”          LRH
         (from HCOB 17 Oct 64 III “Clearing, Why It Works, How It Is Necessary”)

 
(a) ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965 to 1980)

 
(b) ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (in use since 1975)

 
(c) ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use since 1981)

 
Summary (a-c)

 
Additional observations, information and evaluations

The original reference for these CS-1 matters were:
	HCOB 27 Oct 70 “Dianetic CS-1”   (do you have this, please contact me!)
	HCOB 8 Jan 71 “Auditing CS-1 for Dianetics and Scientology”      (Expands on and replaces HCOB 27 Oct 70)
	BTB 8 Jan 71R (Revised 18 Jun 74) “Auditing CS-1 for Dianetics and Scientology”

“GPM:  Means Goals Problem Mass. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illness, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness.” (from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))

It is noted that the definition without mention of GPM is not particularly a wrong definition, but it is not complete. My main objection is that the earlier definition as found in this little ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ from 1965 is not even listed in the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ from 1975 and present edition. On the contrary excluding it tends to make it look all rather suspect in regards to the fact that September 1978 actually skipped the Scientology Clear and thus the Basic Basic (first engram on the track). GPM is very important in regards to the subject of Dianetics and therefore should be included in the official definition of the Reactive Mind.

 
(1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’:  ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)

• ‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry
• ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments
• (a) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (1969) vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (1978) - A comparison and study
          (‘going through incidents once only’ & ‘running with minimum TA’)
  
• (b) ‘Originating a postulate’ (1969) as opposed to ‘Digging for a postulate’ (1978)
  
• (c) Final observations for the defence of the ‘Standard Dianetics’ technique
  
• ‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’

Standard Dianetics (St Dn) was a reissue of the 1950 Dianetics technique and as such released in April 1969, “reorganized and made more workable.”  LRH  (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”). Standard Dianetics was no Book One auditing as various seem to think. This was a fullfledged auditing procedure complete with full use of the E-meter and all.

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry

Original NED Series written:  18 Jun to 20 Jul 78
NED released:  30 Jul 78  (see ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78)

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments

	“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. It is not guessed that this will be assumed and so we could lose an entire subject. ...
	This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”          LRH          (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)

	“NED. (New Era Dianetics). A refinement of all previous Dianetic techniques from 1950 up to present time as well as the development of new technique giving much faster results and far higher gain per hour of auditing and speedy resolution of Dianetic cases.
	Included in NED are twelve brand new developments. They are all contained in far more detail in the NED HCOBs and packs. Due to the extensive changes and improvements in Dianetics, old Dianetic auditors are also training on the NED Course as it only takes 3 weeks for the able student.”

	“When I look back and remember the hundreds and even thousands of hours some people spent on Book One Dianetics, it's like an old story half remembered. If one of those 1950 auditors had the tools of NED they would have been bug-eyed at its fast results. Even the 1968 Dianetic auditor would have been incredulous if his preclears had responded with the speed that NED pcs are achieving. It's probably about 100 to 1. ...
	NED is cleaning up anything and everything Book One ever mentioned with lightning speed.”

These propagandistical presentations in favour of NED, and there were many of them at the time of its release, were more than sufficient to have Standard Dianetics labeled as exactly that... obsolete. Matters were thus assumed, accepted, and finally adopted as such. Authority has thus spoken.

I may however wonder if these people are familiar with what it says for example in HCO PL 17 Jun 70 “Technical Degrades”. It makes for interesting reading.

 
(a) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (1969) vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (1978) - A comparison and study

• An overview of a few evaluations being offered
• A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”  (Includes a notice about the publication ‘Science of Survival’ (1951))
• A closer examination (2): “running with minimum TA”  vs  The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)

 
An overview of a few evaluations being offered

There exists a third evaluation (dated 30 January 2005) which favours Standard Dianetics and places various flaws at the address of New Era Dianetics, this has been written by an independent Scientologist but is almost entirely written in the German language. It appears thus that various are battling with how to interpret all these things, or ... are trying to fit the incidence of this New Era Dianetics into their already formed frame of mind, and that thus will justify it. One should think this one over carefully.

 
A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”

	“If you run a lock, secondary or engram through TWICE and it does not erase, you ask for an earlier similar incident related to the somatic being handled.
	If a mental image picture goes more solid on the second pass through, an earlier similar incident must be found.
	Eventually you will find a basic incident that will erase. It will be the earliest on the chain. ...
	The rule is invariable—IF IT ISN'T ERASING OR IS GOING MORE SOLID AFTER TWICE THROUGH GET AN EARLIER INCIDENT RELATING TO THE ASSESSED SOMATIC AND RUN IT.”         LRH          (from HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”)

	“Ordinarily one runs an incident through twice (Steps 1-9 then A-C), to unburden it and allow the pc to locate earlier incidents on the chain.
	However, the TA rising on Step 9 is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an earlier beginning.
	An auditor should never solidify a pc's bank by putting him through an incident TWICE, when by observation of the TA it is clear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the FIRST run through.
	Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.” (from HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 Sept 78) “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains”)

We can see from this that these routines are essentially different techniques. We can also understand that one can not be a trained Standard Dianetics Auditor and a trained New Era Dianetics Auditor at the same time. Because one will mix up these 2 routines sooner or later!

Now look closely for a moment, this modified Step Nine of the R3RA procedure ( New Era Dianetics auditing routine) introduced a conditional, which is “if the TA has risen”. A direct consequence of this is that one is “running with minimum TA”. A result of this is that one is risking not discharging incidents, before going on to the next, because of too little TA. (I address this in section “c)”, next section)

“But to finish this incident off, just move them through it again. They'll pick up some more stuff. That's the time they're going to tell you there's something earlier. And it doesn't much matter how many times you run them through an incident. Less than twice is suspect. That's maybe a little careless. But might very well—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy, and so forth, and messed up—once would be plenty. There's where judgment comes in. More than twice? Well, you're getting into questionable ground—very questionable ground. Trying to chug them into it and make them have more view of it or more picture or get more event out of it or do something else with it than they can do at that particular time? Nah! Verboten. It'll turn up in an earlier incident or you got no business running engrams. That's all there is to that.”          LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #272, renumbered 1991: #300 “Engram Running Chain”, given on 11 Jun 63)

Alright, we should have some perspective here. What we are facing here is that L. Ron Hubbard did not turn it into a standard procedure. As such it never materialized in directing such through a release in an HCOB. We don't find it in the main references concerning the Standard Dianetics auditing routine (R3R) issued shortly after that lecture was given, which are HCOB 24 Jun 63 (AD13) “Routine 3, Engram Running by Chain, Bulletin 3; Routine 3-R, Engram Running by Chains” and HCOB 1 Jul 63 (AD13) “Routine 3R, Bulletin 4, Preliminary Step”.

You see, a lecture is just a lecture, it is a telling. They are not on the same level as HCOB's. Rather applicable here is also Seniority of Orders: “HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech”   LRH  (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72). Obviously HCOB's then are senior to tape recordings. HCOB's have precedence! And it was still not made part of standard procedure in 1969 for which we have the release of HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”. We find that it was not implemented into the standard procedure as released in HCOB's from 1963, and not either 6 years later in 1969, but it was suddenly implemented in 1978 as part of the new NED technique that focuses entirely on it (thus 15 years later). Now, it this a turning away from basics?

“The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.”          LRH          (from HCOB 12 Jun 70 “Programming of Cases”)

A further argument would urge us to establish how often this “—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy, and so forth, and messed up—”, how often this would occur in session? As I am confided by various persons this is rather seldom. This is therefore another reason to not have it implemented as part of a standard procedure. And it wasn't, at least not until 1978, a whole 15 years later.

	“So technical progress has been:
	COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
	COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”          LRH          (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

Now to sum this one up. Does it justify the reverting back of the NED technique to this little line from a lecture from 1963? As much as some people want this to be so, this just does not appear to be the case. But we are not actually ready here yet, as the modification to “going through incidents once only” had another consequence, which is that it lead to “running with minimum TA”, and this may very well have been the ruling contributing factor why L. Ron Hubbard did not actually made it part of a standard procedure. (see further section “c)”)

A notice about the publication ‘Science of Survival’ (1951) regarding this matter

Now, concerning actual “judgment” it would be applicable to point out here the significance of the book publication ‘Science of Survival: Simplified, Faster, Dianetic Techniques’ (August 1951, first issued as a limited manuscript 2 months earlier). The subtitle later changed to ‘Prediction of Human Behaviour’, and this actually is a rather accurate circumscription of the purpose of the book. You see, the book came with a chart (‘Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing’). If the information as forwarded in the book was well understood and applied it allowed you to pinpoint a person on that chart, you determined that person's tone (as in the Tone Scale).
We find for example in the book “No engrams must be run on individuals who are below 2.0 on the tone scale whether they are accessible or inaccessible save in those rare instances when the file clerk insists on presenting an engram, and they must be run then only with the gravest caution, and they must not be run even then if the auditor considers himself inexperienced.”   LRH  (see Book Two; Chapter 13 “Column AI, Engrams”; page 190 in Nov 67 edition). Which specifies if one should be too careful or less careful, or not run at all.
The chart accompanying the book lists 43 columns. If you go to the section indicated as columns ‘AE’ to ‘AJ’ you will find they have the heading title ‘Types of Entheta Which Can Be Run’. They list:
	AE AF AG AH AI AJ	- Imaginary Incidents - Locks - Scanning Lock - Secondary Engrams - Engrams - Chains of Engrams	(consult this section of the chart in detail here, pop-up window)

 
A closer examination (2): “running with minimum TA”  vs  The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)

To properly understand the significance of getting TA requires that one has a good understanding of what TA (Tone Arm Action) actually is and stands for. For this reason I offer here below a selection of quotations. This will give some idea of its boundaries.

Tone Arm Action (TA) quotations:

“This tone arm—this thing over here on the upper—upper-left side of the meter. ... And its read is monitored for the body. It reads the body. When a person is Clear you're not reading him; the E-Meter ceases to read.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #1 “E-Meter Talk and Demo”, given on 7 May 61)

“The Tone Arm registers Density of Mass (ridges, pictures. machines, circuits) in the mind of the preclear. This is actual mass, not imaginary, and can be weighed, measured by resistance, etc. Therefore the Tone Arm registers State of Case at any given time in processing. The Tone Arm also registers advance of case during processing by moving. An unmoving case has an unmoving Tone Arm. A moving case has a moving Tone Arm.”          LRH
         (from E-Meter Essentials (1961), page 9)

“The TA is indicating the blowing off of force. That is a measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case—the amount of encysted force leaving the case. You've got a measure of it right there. It goes up and down, and it measures the amount of force which is going.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #291, renumbered 1991: #320 “Auditing Comm Cycle”, given on 6 Aug 63)

“Now, this tone arm is the instrument which measures the adequacy of restimulation. That shows you that an adequate amount of charge is being restimulated in the session and that it is being adequately dispelled on the itsa* line. And this shows you that the cycle of whatsit-itsa is in progress, and the amount of restimulation is adequate to get auditing done.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #295, renumbered 1991: #324 “The Tone Arm”, given on 15 Aug 63)

“Tone Arm Action denotes a change and, therefore, that case gain for the preclear is occurring.”
         (from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))

“Do you see that your tone arm, the tone arm, is, in actual fact, the measure of accumulation of charge? The needle surges are just gradients of the tone arm. You can get a tone arm actually behaving like a needle. And a tone arm over a long period of time, does behave like a needle. A tone arm measures the amount of charge-up on the case at that particular time.”          LRH
(from Class VIII Course lecture #6 “Mechanics of Techniques and Subject Matter”, given on 29 Sept 68)

“A technical term for the quantitative measurement of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time.”
         (from Introduction to Scientology Ethics: Glossary (70's edition), page 38)

This should make things clear that one needs to get sufficient with TA on a person if you are going to be able to run out any incidents. Therefore running with minimum TA will complicate matters. It is thus vital to get adequate Tone Arm Action on a person. A guide for this can be found in HCOB 25 Sept 63 “Adequate Tone Arm Action”. L. Ron Hubbard states “Now that it has been established fully that a pc’s gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered.”. And he directs: “Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2½ hour session or per hour of auditing.”. A table is presented in this HCOB that looks as follows:

	“Amount Per Session		Sessions Rating		PC Reaction
	25 Divs        20 Divs        15 Divs        10 Divs          5 Divs          0 Divs		Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unacceptable Harmful		Feels wonderful Feels good Feels ‘Better’ Slight Change No Change Gets Worse”

L. Ron Hubbard then directs: “Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 2½ hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range.”.

	“The most important difference between St Dn and NED is the amount of Tone Arm Action you get off with each: it is very high with St Dn (usually above 25 TA (divs) per 2.5 Hrs auditing) and very low with NED: often only 5 TA or less, which Ron calls harmful auditing, as it restimulates more than it erases.
	I would not object to going E/S (earlier similar) when the TA rises by 1.0 or more, but this happens very seldom. NED violates the original auditors code: per this code one repeats a process so long as it releases TA and one changes the action when TA diminishes. This was applied especially on St Dn and got lost with NED.
	So with St Dn you really dig out the pcs out of their case and with NED you put them in! One phenomenon proves this easily: NED pcs tend to run the same half dozens incidents again and again independent of the auditing command or item you assessed. This is an indicator of incidents not fully erased. And thus the mind protects itself and does not present many new incidents. - This can easily be observed by NED-auditors, but they usually don't pull the string.
	On St Dn you usually run different incidents with every new session. Only rarely happens, that incidents are run again and again: and in these cases there is something wrong: wrong flow, wrong date or such and when you find that, also these incidents diminish.”

As these are technical matters, require a certain expertise and experience with handling an E-meter this you have to verify for yourself.

	“The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.
	Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
	1.    Get good Tone Arm Action.
	2.    Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.”          LRH (from HCOB 1 Oct 63 “How to Get Tone Arm Action”)

 
(b) ‘Originating a postulate’ (1969) as opposed to ‘Digging for a postulate’ (1978)

Postulates

This could be said to be a rather essential difference between Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics. The significance of postulates has been pounded upon since at least as early as November 1951. We find lectures with titles like for example “Basic Postulates” and “Prime Thought” (both given on 12 Nov 51).

“A postulate is that self-determined thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future efforts. Postulates alone aberrate the individual. ... Old people are generally considered to be set in their ways. It would be more accurate to say that they were set in their own postulates. It is necessary to make postulates. To make postulates and handle them, it is necessary to handle past postulates. A postulate may spring from past effort or prime thought. A prime postulate is the decision to change from a state of not beingness to a state of beingness. ... Postulates, whenever made, are responsible for the condition of the pre-clear, bad or good. ... Postulates made by a pre-clear are a pattern. It is necessary to reach the earliest postulates by touching the later ones and running them back with straight-wire. Postulates surrender just like any other lock, or, in engrams, just like any other perception in an engram.”          LRH

	“..., it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM.
		1.   Charge as an engram.
		2.   Charge as Reliable Items.
		3.   Charge as postulates.
	All three must be removed from a GPM.
	Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.
	Thus in all incidents the pc's postulates must be called for and removed.”          LRH          (from HCOB 20 Aug 63 “R3R – R3N, The Preclears Postulates”)

The mechanism

“Behind most postulates, however, is an enormous amount of effort and emotion which may have to be run before the postulate can be contacted; or on occasion the effort may be run simultaneously with the postulates. Often, merely contacting the postulate collapses the emotion and effort tied into it. If a postulate does not de-sensitize on first recall, … . Help the preclear to recall a decision again and again, or try to get an earlier one on the same subject. If he does not experience relief, there is an even earlier one on the same subject. Later postulates are lying as a sort of burden on the earlier ones.”          LRH          (from ‘The Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 6’, Dec 51)

“Goals” and the “mechanics of an engram”

Sound snippet (0:10)

	“A guy has an engram. He was in an automobile accident. ‘What was your—what was your postulate? What were your—what was your goal, idea …’ and so forth. Immediately at the beginning of that accident, that will be the goal for that period of time. And any way the goal is not executed will be an alter-isness which creates a solidity, and that is the mechanics of an engram. That is how an engram suspends in space. It is the alter-ised prime postulate. And any alter-isness of that goal, you could call it, brings about a suspension of mass. The only way you get mass is by alter-isness.
	Now, there it applies to an engram. I don't—I don't invite you to take engrams apart that way, because you're going to miss here and there. You'd have to do a little Goals Assessment at the beginning of the engram, don't you see, and work it out. Possibly you'd get away with it, but it might be so far—he might have been so far out of valence at the time the thing occurred, and it might have been such an automaticity of circuitry, that you might have a goal which, if it were the wrong goal... See, you might not be able to reach his actual postulate, and if you listed for that little engram—the wrong goal—if you listed the wrong one, you would get a further solidification of the engram.”          LRH

Sound snippet (1:32)

Sound snippet (0:17)

Sound snippet (0:30)

(all above snippets from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #160, renumbered 1991: #170 “How to Do a Goals Assessment”, given on 12 Jun 62)

Sound snippet (0:06)

Evaluation

Now, if you teach the preclear (and the auditor), that this postulate is one of the indicators of the end of chain and the end phenomena of the session, then you will be putting a lot of attention on this. Then when the preclear has a hard time to face some early incident, he would be lured into looking for a postulate to escape the charge of that incident. To which the auditor thus is prone to succor. And when the preclear then grabs something to escape and it is the wrong item, this could do him in very heavily. It would be advised here that one runs Standard Dianetics without any attention on the postulate or cognitions, as they would simply appear when the charge of the incident/engram comes off.

HCOB 16 Sept 78 “Postulate Off Equals Erasure” notes in its final sentence: “It's the POSTULATE we are going for in New Era Dianetics.”. Well, this is old news. It has ALWAYS been about the postulate, in 1951 Dianetics, in Standard Dianetics, but ... you have to arrive at in the correct way, and pull all other charge that you come across as well! This sentence in this HCOB seems to suggest as if this would be something new! As if Standard Dianetics doesn't pull postulates! Well, that just ISN'T true! Nonetheless various persons have approached me about exactly that, making that very suggestion, and they were trained NED auditors. Ah, well ...

Now, considering the data forwarded in this (b) section. Well, how the hell could NED happen and be accepted? Just like that? Was everyone asleep? Or were they all sheep? Ah, that rhymes too ...

 
(c) Final observations for the defence of the ‘Standard Dianetics’ technique

There are a few more things to say about the actual differences between Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics. I originally got onto this research track while having discussed the matter with Scientology oldtimers (various were Class VI or VIII auditors). People that first had learned and used the technique of Standard Dianetics and that only later were taught (if at all) the technique of New Era Dianetics.

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’

	“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears. ...
	Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”          LRH    (from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)

“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.” (from ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”)

“New Era Dianetics cannot be run on Clears or above without serious consequences to the body particularly when New Era Dianetics is run wrong and upside down. Below that grade New Era Dianetics can be run safely and beneficially.”          David Mayo, Flag Senior C/S (from ‘Source 18’, Nov-Dec 78, page 11)

“In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear.” (from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)

So, we can positively conclude here that what was being run was New Era Dianetics and not Standard Dianetics. It says this also specifically in the various available documentation. Nonetheless it concludes that “NED, or any Dianetics” can not be run. Standard Dianetics had never given any particular difficulties, please identify that these started when NED was being run! Or are we may be to presuppose that NED processing did something to the preclear, and that thereafter one can not run Standard Dianetics either anymore? The correctness of this presupposition is however rather unlikely. Either way this observation alone that NED was being run would thus indicate or point a finger at that something would be considerably different from Standard Dianetics that had given no cause for particular problems in the past. And consequently also would point a finger at a probable ineffectiveness of NED, as somatics remain. Hence the creation of New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's).

This generalization exercised of placing New Era Dianetics on the same level as Standard Dianetics is rather noteworthy considering my here above account of the happenings that led to this very decision of kicking Standard Dianetics.

Sound snippet (1:15)

It should be fairly clear now. This L. Ron Hubbard did not receive any Standard Dianetics, he received NED! Strictly taken this however should not have resulted in the guiding rule “that Clears shouldn't be audited on engrams”! After all, New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing had caused it, and not Standard Dianetics.

Another that has to be forwarded here is that one may seriously wonder why this L. Ron Hubbard (1) would have been audited “several months” on Dianetics (in this case New Era Dianetics), because was he not Clear already?; and (2) when you are Clear this basically would mean that you from there on out would be Solo auditing. This all urges us to consider if the person receiving this NED auditing actually was Clear, and if in fact this was L. Ron Hubbard and not some other person. You see, David Mayo is not asking these questions that I am asking here! So, (1) why didn't he ask this L. Ron Hubbard why he was running NED?; and (2) he fails to investigate or determine exactly what had caused this person to “become quite physically incapacitated”, and it couldn't have been Standard Dianetics simply because that was not being run!

Consequences of New Era Dianetics:

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on. 
     AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AO's. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization.
     alter-is:
1. A composite word meaning the action of altering or changing the reality of something. Is-ness means the way it is. When something sees it differently he is doing an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. (LRH Def. Notes)  2. To introduce a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. An introduction of an alter-is is therefore the addition of a lie to the real which causes it to persist and not to blow or as-is. (HCOB 11 May 65)
     AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     Book One (or Book I):
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ that functions as ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy’. It was first published in 1950.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     CCRD:
‘Clear Certainty Rundown’.
     C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
     (auditing) CS-1:
‘Case Supervisor-1’. 1. A general C/S which covers the basics of getting a preclear sessionable. The product is an educated pc who can run Scientology or Dianetics easily and get case gain. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)  2. Purpose: to give preclears new to Dianetics or Scientology and to give previously audited preclears as needed, the necessary data and R-factor on basics and auditing procedure so that he understands and is able and willing to be audited successfully. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)
     Clear:
1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     Dn:
Short for ‘Dianetics’.
     engram:
1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism’s survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68)  2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153)  3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  
     entheta:
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     file clerk:
Dianetic auditors’ slang for the mechanism of the mind which acts as a data monitor. Auditors could get instant or “flash” answers direct from the file clerk to aid in contacting incidents. (The Phoenix Lectures, pp 207-208)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
     GPM:
‘Goals Problem Mass’. 1. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illnesses, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary).  2. The problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06).  3. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). (HCOB 17 Oct 64 III)
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     HQS:
‘Hubbard Qualified Scientologist’.  1. Teaches about co-auditing and how to handle other people with group auditing. Processes taught are TRs (Training Routines) 0 to 4 and 6 to 9, co-auditing on CCHs (Control Communication Havingness processes), Op Pro by Dup (Operating Procedure by Duplication process) and Self Analysis Lists.  2. This course is a basic course in the fundamentals of Scientology technology and gives a gradient of application of a few vital principles.
     itsa:
1. The action of the pc saying “It's a this or it's a that.” (HCOB 6 Nov 64)  2. A pc who is itsaing is simply looking at and identifying some thing. (SH Spec 320, 6310C31)  3. TA comes from saying “It is...” Itsa isn't even a comm line. It's what travels on a comm line from pc to auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty “It is.” (HCOB 1 Oct 63)
     itsa line:
The pc's line to the auditor. (HCOB 23 May 71 III)
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     NED:
‘New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     Objectives:
Refers to a package of processes which are part of a step found somewhere at the bottom of the Grade Chart or Bridge (Classification Gradation and Awareness Chart of Levels and Certificates). Generally this consists of the CCH processes I-IV (see HCOB 1 Dec 65 “CCHs”).
(CCH: Control, Communication & Havingness. Several associated processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)
     Operating Thetan (OT):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     R3R:
‘Routine 3 Revised’. R3R is the basic Standard Dianetics (St Dn) auditing routine.
     R3RA:
‘Routine 3 Re-revised’. R3RA is the basic New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing routine.
     R6:
‘Routine 6’. It means the exact processes and aspects of case handled at Level VI of Scientology (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     R6EW:
‘Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release].
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     Scn:
Short for ‘Scientology’.
     secondary:
A mental image picture of a moment of severe and shocking loss or threat of loss which contains misemotion such as anger, fear , grief, apathy or “deathfulness.” It is a mental image recording of a time with severe mental stress. It may contain unconsciousness. Called a secondary because it itself depends upon an earlier engram with similar data but real pain, etc. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)
     SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     St Dn:
‘Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). It was finalized in December of that year. Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978.
     TA:
‘tone arm (action)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)
     tone scale:
1. Essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law in nature. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis, p. 59)  2. A person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones, one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the tone scale of Dn and Scn is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do. The tone scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. On many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the tone scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many stops between these tones. A person in grief, when his tone improves feels fear. A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. (Problems of Work, pp. 77-78)
     TR:
‘training regimen or routine’. See at ‘training routine’ in vocabulary.
     training routine (TR):
Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)